This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Dem debate 4/14/2016

Originally Posted by PoS

And thats how it should be- Bernie only does well in non-democratic caucuses anyway.

The fact that Hillary does poorly in Open Primaries is something that the establishment should consider if Trump becomes the nominee. Bernie destroyed her in New Hampshire. In fact Bernie has won every open Primary unless I'm mis-remembering. Trump kills it in Open primaries so if it's Trump vs Hillary I think the Dems are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

Re: Dem debate 4/14/2016

Originally Posted by FieldTheorist

Well, you can't have it both ways. He's currently doing better than she is in the national polls, and the reason for this is that the Democratic party isn't interested in absorbing young people into their party. Setting aside the fact that this is wildly stupid and shortsighted, it is making the very direct statement that they don't want young voters to get involved in the Democratic primary. It doesn't matter to them if these young people are liberal, progressive, or left-wing, which is what (ostensibly) should be sufficient to be a Democrat.

(Of course, that's not what the Democratic party stands for nowadays.)

I was referring to Rob's comment about last minute voters who sign up for the party- Ive heard many of them do that by switching at the last minute just to vote on a whim. I consider that on par with fakery and political manipulation.

Originally Posted by reinoe

The fact that Hillary does poorly in Open Primaries is something that the establishment should consider if Trump becomes the nominee. Bernie destroyed her in New Hampshire. In fact Bernie has won every open Primary unless I'm mis-remembering. Trump kills it in Open primaries so if it's Trump vs Hillary I think the Dems are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

LOL Bernie did not win every open primary- thats a delusional statement. The only primary that he won as I recall was Michigan (but even then his delegate count was only slightly higher than what Hillary got) and his home state of Vermont.

Re: Dem debate 4/14/2016

Originally Posted by PoS

I was referring to Rob's comment about last minute voters who sign up for the party- Ive heard many of them do that by switching at the last minute just to vote on a whim. I consider that on par with fakery and political manipulation.

Are they going to vote for that candidate in in the national election? If so, I think it's highly relevant. We live in a political system that's rigged for only two candidates from two parties. Why shouldn't independents help pick who they want to run, particularly if they are both the largest group of voters and they are deprived of any other opportunity? It's both bad for the party (because they are now required to have a substantial portion of Independents in order to secure the presidency) and it's bad for Independents' right to play a meaningful role in the American democracy.

"The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass-communication and should use this power, as they tell us they must [to] manipulate and deceive the 'stupid majority', and remove them from the public arena. The question, in brief, is whether Democracy and Freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided." --Chomsky

Re: Dem debate 4/14/2016

Originally Posted by FieldTheorist

Are they going to vote for that candidate in in the national election? If so, I think it's highly relevant. We live in a political system that's rigged for only two candidates from two parties. Why shouldn't independents help pick who they want to run, particularly if they are both the largest group of voters and they are deprived of any other opportunity? It's both bad for the party (because they are now required to have a substantial portion of Independents in order to secure the presidency) and it's bad for Independents' right to play a meaningful role in the American democracy.

The dem nomination process should be decided by dems, not by independents. Same thing with the GOP nominations. If the independents want a say in another party's nominations then they shouldnt be registered as independents.

Re: Dem debate 4/14/2016

Originally Posted by PoS

The dem nomination process should be decided by dems, not by independents. Same thing with the GOP nominations. If the independents want a say in another party's nominations then they shouldnt be registered as independents.

I'm not sure why you're bringing Hillary into this, but that's perfectly fine in my book --that rule can be enacted once political party's start agreeing to disenact the laws that make them the only games in town. For instance, make it reasonably possible for Independent politicians to get into national debates, enact runoff ballots, do campaign finance reform, and so on.

But you can't write laws that literally finance and support the two party that keeps them the only games in town, AND have a Party-based purity test at the primary voting booth. That's just undemocratic and it's a facade for the rich and powerful maintaining their hegemony over the so-called democratic process.

"The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass-communication and should use this power, as they tell us they must [to] manipulate and deceive the 'stupid majority', and remove them from the public arena. The question, in brief, is whether Democracy and Freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided." --Chomsky